the white house to start this super pac and began trying to help barack obama get reelected. and it started slow. the way to raise money is to go to donors. go to people who the donated before, to people who have shown an interest in trying to help the president. and it is a veryif you think ab, the power of his campaign in 2008, we know how much of that was fuelled by little donations, by people in this room sending $5 or $3 or whatever it is and the enthusiasm of small donors. you can do that as a super pac. you spend your time trying to raise six-figure or seven-figure checks. yes, i can find $250 for charity

i am helping. but can have $1 million? that is a different thing. since then, priority usa has become very successful in raising money. more importantly, i think the priority has been an important part of setting the tone for the presidential campaign. the subject of this had a lot of influence. so we called up the ads -- .xcuse me for one sec i will show you and at the party put together. it will be the ad on the left -- not that one. as maggie said, if you just told

a for one second -- so priority, as maggie said, i served as one of the pollsters for priority usa and work along the very talented geoff garin. we were pulling together each of our respective firms. my firm also serve as a digital advertising firm. whatever is being advertised on the internet, my firm is helping to serve up to all of you. this ad is an interesting one. in the research, what we found was something -- i wish we could say we found it -- newt gingrich found it give newt gingrich founded -- and gingrich ran a campaign against mitt romney based on being capital and how he made his money. -- don bain capital and how he

made his money. he was not a nice man to mitt romney, as you'll recall. they had a 30-minute ad in the beginning about being capital that they put on the budget about been capital -- bain capital and the beginning. it talked about how mitt romney had made his money. it was not that anybody has anything against mitt romney for being rich. we'll make our choices and how we make money. this is one of the ads, perhaps the most powerful and we have done. other consultants have talked about this, saying it is very powerful. check this out and then we will talk about it.

>> not knowing what it was for. just days later, all three shifts were told to assemble in the warehouse. a group of people walk on to that stage and told us that the plant is now closed and all of you are fired. i looked both ways could i looked at the crowd and we all just lost their jobs. we don't have an income. nit romney made over $100 million by shutting down power plant and devastated our lives. -- shutting down power plant in devastated our lives. -- shutting down our plant and its devastated our lives. out of the blue one day, we were told to build a 30-foot stage --

>> ab powerful ad called "stage ," powerful because it sets the stage for what mitt romney's parties were. from a digital perspective, this ad was seen two million times on youtube. most importantly, it was seen primarily in the swing states where voters were looking for this kind of information. i think this was very important at setting the stage for the rest of the campaign. i will show you one more ad and then i promise to shut up. it is not all nasty negative. here is one we did leading up

to the olympics. >> there is mitt romney who ran the salt lake city games, waiting to china, home to a billion people. thousands of their jobs thanks to romney appeared and india. he kept millions in swiss banks. those swiss sure know how to keep a secret. speaking of secret, there is bermuda, home to a secret corp. set up by romney. no one knows why and romney will tell. and the cayman islands, where romney keeps millions to avoid u.s. taxes. you have to say this about mitt romney. he sure knows how to go for the gold.

>> so the u.s. olympic committee was not that happy. [laughter] as you might expect. that ad was a little bit short lived, but it got a lot of free media coverage and a lot of views on the internet. and kudos to one of the leading advisers to priorities who came up with the idea for that ad. it is a lot of fun to do what we do for a living. priorities has been eager experience. as -- has been a great experience good as money flowed into the super paks in general, and also to priorities, we have played an important role in this campaign. not the kind of outside world that my colleague has. >> there is a little bit of a difference.

there is a runny super pac called restore our future. i was -- american crossroads has spent more money and has been around much longer. but you can talk a little bit about the decision to do that. it came up much earlier and saw a lot of what was going to happen before it actually happened. so talk about the beginning of that. in the beginning, there's no decision for the republican candidate and that point. >> i will go back even earlier than 2010. to really understand, you have to go back to 2002. previous to the campaign finance reform act of 2002, if you were at the rnc or the dnc, you could solicit a million-dollar contribution from a corporation or labor union or a wealthy

individual and they could be disclosed and you could spend it however you wanted. they capped the amount of money they could raise from individuals. the idea is that if any of you wants to put an ad on the air to talk about what you believe in, that is protected by the first amendment and you cannot shut it down. people think that it is a center-right thing that all of going on.pacs are it happens in the right and the left. in 2000's -- in 2004, george soros, peter lewis and stephen been raised two million dollars to try to defeat president bush. this has been around for a long time. it had gone on for even longer, the labor unions in the process

to help elect democrats. the biggest outside groups are the labor unions. when karl rove looked at the 2010 elections, they realize that, while big labor, which spent $400 million helping elect president obama and the democrats in 2008, there was no corollary to that that existed on the right to be able to spend large amounts of money on behalf of the republican candidates for the house and senate. we set a goal of $50 million in 2010 and i was working a crossroads when president obama attacked crossroads could he said we were taking illegally from china. as soon as he said that come within 10 days, which saw an uptick in crossroads. the reason for that was because president obama, by attacking crossroads, identified as as the biggest risk to his existence.

and the rest is history. that is kind of were the center- right groups are. in fact, in 2010, people think of crossroads as being the biggest spenders in the 2010 election. we were not. the biggest expenditures were from the american federation of states county and municipal employees. the second biggest spending group was the use chambers. and then rounding up the top five were nci you -- was day se -- were the seiu. so they were not super pacs, but .abor unions feare a lot of labour does not

disclose in the same way. so they can spend lots more money that is not as visible to the political process. >> you have a lot more federal disclosure on the federal side. >> any peace in july, big labor had spent $4.4 billion between 2007 and 2011, impacting the political process in this debate and local level. >> american crossroads is very active in the presidential election. this is one that we launched today in eight states, $12 million. >> this is what president obama

said the jobless rate would be if we passed stimulus, 5.6%. this is really where it is come 8.1%. the difference? about 3.7 million jobs. $5ma's spending drew was trillion deeper into debt and now we have fewer jobs than when he started. but obama promised versus what he delivered. >> it holds the president to account for a very big promise that he made when they were selling the stimulus. the president had a plan to fix it could they spent $800 million on all kinds of different things to fix the economy. they spend the money and the jobs did not follow. what we got was that. when you talk about it in those terms, here's what the president sold to the american people on how to fix the economy. these were the results. not only did not create the jobs, but we have a lot of debt

to pay off. we tried to hold elected officials to account for the record and also for the promises they have made. that is why politicians don't like super pacs because we're able to do this. >> living here between the new york and philadelphia media market, you will not see any of those. in 89 states, that is important to remember. there is it -- in eight or nine states, that is important to remember. there's a lot of money concentrated in a very small number of states. that is very important for everybody here to remember. campaign finance reform and the unintended consequences, that is one of my pet peeves, the unintended consequences with

well-intentioned legislation. we want to open it up to questions. but did not want to become the moderator here. but that happens. first dibs on the students in the class. you can take the microphone. you can see yourself on c-span. don't wait to anybody. if you have a question about campaign finance reform are specifically about the presidential race for these outside groups or past outside groups -- will turn it over to maggie. >> one of the things that is fascinating to me when folks discuss this issue as they often talk about the role of the unions and labor. what is interesting about organized labor is that they have been under a series of rules for years, especially under the federal department of labor and they have done more strict. for example, if you are a rank- and-file member of a union,

you agree to let your money to be used for political purposes. when i go to the store to buy a soda, i did not sign on to whatever company political .gendas of that sort appeare they spent an incredible amount into their personal agenda. that is not a comparison you can make to unions per se in the way und politics traditionally. we were talking about who is winning this many race. do you want to walk through some of those numbers? >> you put up the one chart and this is from "the washington post." if you put that picture, you can

see what the ad spending is. these are the third to you the amount of ad spending. those are the top three. then you get the 22.7 for the dnc. 17.54 the rnc mitt romney committee. four out of those five are republican entities. yes, barack obama has had a lot of money, too. i'm a trying to go past that give the obama campaign has had a tremendous amount of money. we look at super pacs, it is very clear that republicans have dominated. restore our future has $87 million this cycle.

$87 million and crossroads $3 million overall. -- $30 million overall. these are huge amounts of money in this cycle. i just think it is what it is. it is the reality we are dealing with. that is why we are here today to talk about it appeared it is a difficult thing for campaigns to deal with. >> when looking at the practical matters of this campaign, the president's campaign, president obama's campaign is a spending very significantly the romney campaign on television. but with the outside groups to make you aggregate the president and the groups on the left and governor romney and the groups on the right, it is gov. romney's side come if you will, that has a higher weight on television. that is a big important part of

the finance report the republican national committee and the democratic national committee use to be able to do this. basically, the entities that are most accountable to the voters are the candidates themselves. that to stand behind their ads and put their faces on their ads and say they authorized to this. they are ultimately the people that are voted on. the next layer route is the party commission. they are held to account. they're the closest thing compared to the candidates to be held to account. the dga and the rga figured that out for it quickly. this is the result of a lot of people with good intentions who feel that money has no place in politics. but they ended up putting many outside. there's the share of spending by candidates in the past, well before 2002, it was.

-- it was. -- it was 50/50. you started to move back and then you have the party committees during private expenditure in ads. the states should be able to work with the candidates and campaign. but you start squeezing the amount of money that is being spent by the candidates. and have the outside groups. rather than each candidate tried to get roughly 50% of what is being set on their tummies canada is getting 20% of what is -- on the air, the candidate is getting 20% of what is put on the air. the other groups are getting 60%. the people who are most important in this process, who are the candidates, this has made them less and less relevant and less advocates in their own

race. neither side should just stand down and have the other side have a huge event it. they're both right in raising as much money. that is their right in the local process. but this in many raise -- but this in many ways to undermine stay political process. >> even if they will be contracting or ifnegative, the candidate has to own the had. how does the vote for distinguish what could be added accurate or is not accurate? who is dominated that message point? how do the voters sift through it? when you look at the president's numbers in the swing states, he is doing quite well give the amount of money spent by restore

our future and all of these entities, that message is not coming through. it is not compelling. if you look at the swing states which we thought would be remarkably close, they are starting to trend toward obama in a way. everyone seems to think that, unless you're reset this presidential election, it is clear that the president is headed for setting an environment for this electoral map. he has a serious advantage. >> [indiscernible] >> right, mitt romney will do something tomorrow to make a seismic shift. you also engage in more localized races, state, congressional and senate. >> we are primarily focused on the presidential election appeared the goal at crossroads is to beat president obama. but we are also heavily invested

in senate and house races. in a lot of ways, the other super pacs are not. we are focusing on all of the senate races, where you will see the advertising earlier on. the bigger the office, the more people pay attention earlier. >> crossroads plays this outsized role in the senate races. don't think that these two are not inclined. i am not suggesting it is nefarious. even if there is parity between the democrats and republicans alike in the presidential advertising, they are way out spending on the senate races and house races. and those have been packed. it is because of the environment, how people feel when there is billions of

dollars of ad spending in the state of montana, for example, on the senate race. it affects the house race. it affects other races as well. it is certainly a consequence of supers -- of super pac spending like this. i worked for far more campaigns than in expenditures. when we deal with campaigns, what we always talk about is when is crossroads going to come up. when is crossroads corn to be there? half of our planning and half of our discussions is about what the outside entities will do. we used to say what we are going to do they will do. now we are all planning for a multilevel chess feet which makes our job more fine. >> and there are more and more.

there are more super pacs on the left now and there are multiple super pacs on both sides. what's the biggest outside spender in house races is the -- >> the biggest outside spender in house races is the democratic -- >> right. think that will be at the end of the day. in the senate races, for sure, you guys have been the monster player. what's the other thing that is important for people to realize is that there are very specific rules that everybody has to abide by if you are in bold in a super pac. -- if you are involved in a super pac. it is interesting to watch. it is a big chess board. there are a lot more players involved. having to live by these rules that make these and bennett expenditures truly independent, that is important for everybody

to remember. after 2004, i was on a panel with a field organizer. they lamented that the field organizing was done by the rnc on the republican side and by the outside groups on the democrats' side did they legally could not communicate with the campaign. there were unable to do that. in their mind, the campaign was doing the right thing. so everybody follows these rules well. does anybody have any questions? any students? >> you have to come down to the microphone. please try to keep your questions as concise as you can. >> no cursing. >> thank you for being here. this is the united states. we allow corporations to fund these campaigns.

but corporations are people, didn't you hear? the supreme court said it appeared >> -- said it. >> have there ever been international corporations that funded these particular super pacs? have certain countries been fighting for a particular candidate -- been vying for a particular candidate to? thatrst, i don't know corporations are giving to the super pacs. if you were to seek corporate entities, there is money going in there, but not as much as you think. it does not have quite the impact as people -- a piece on the impact of citizens united in

"new york times magazine" in july is very interesting. first of all, we don't take any money from foreign entities. >> no money from foreign nationals. >> we were talking about how it changed the field in the bed and how it has corrupted the political field. at the same time, it has created jobs for you guys. >> a good question. >> i would like to know a little more on that. would you be in favor of getting rid of this super pac thing? if so, what would you favor in response to it? what would you prefer have in its place? >> it is always evolving. let's assume for a second that a new set of laws were passed. as quickly as they are passed coming election lawyers figure out how to get around them. it is remarkable. what i support getting the money

back into the candidates' campaigns? absolutely. i have worked for two million politicians in my life. the rank-and-file should be approaching somebody who is self-funding to be able to raise larger amounts. but i think there should be far more accountability for the electorate and far more transparency. from my perspective, i think it is better for the country if we went back to that model. >> i don't know that i necessarily agree with the assumption of the question. if you saw the american crossroads ad in which you see the groups do. should the elected representeive do what he thinks is right or

what the electorate thinks is right? the important thing to take away from that is the there is this tension between what the elected representative wants to do and with the electorate wants to do. no one wants to run for office to cast a lever. you want to run because you believe in something. nobody wants to just pull the lever for with the constituents want to do. so all is super pac can do is identify places where the elected representative has gone out to four from his constituencies and then educate the electorate about how the elected representative is sideways with the american people. there is talk about how the president has a stimulus program. it was highly unpopular.

the only thing the super pac can do is hold the president or any other elected official to account. it does not change the stimulus legislation. but we can identify places where an elected representative is sideways with his constituents and let people know about it. i don't think i agree with the premise of the question that it is necessarily bad. i think it brings to light a lot of what people don't know. >> i think there should be full disclosure. but if you let that flew into candidates come it would allow underfunded candidates -- if you could wave a wand and get rid of limits and allow people to essentially contribute as much as they want to the candidate as long as it is immediately disclosed, the press and opponents can decide whether that is having undue influence on the elected official. that would bring more accountability back to the candidate. >> it is also the way candidates raise money. corporate or union pacc that

exist in washington d.c., they mostly go to incumbents. democrats held large majorities in the house and senate in 2010. traditional halfs, which are -- , giving to patacs democrats and not to republicans. they don't care that they're democrats or republicans. they care about the incumbent. superbads -- super pacs can hold the office of the to account. a vote on obamacare or a vote on the stimulus or something like that. >> is still perverse. would still rather have the

opponent pointing out those things than a super pak. i would rather have two sides of the campaign battling that at rather than some other entity. public financing is one solution. good or bad, that is one solution. the disclosure is certainly one thing. there are multiple solutions. to me, it is frustrating that the candidate's voice has been muted. on the senate race and the house races, i want these two men coming to least among men and ladies to talk to one another and fight it out between each other. i think we would probably get more vision out of them and in the more contrast. but here's what i think in here's what she thinks. >> that is a very good point. i think the advertising matters less in the presidential race than any other race.

people are actually watching the presidential race. we get down to the u.s. senate race in a place like new jersey, it is difficult for either candidate to have enough money. it does become much harder for candidates to get their voices heard without large dollars for advertising. even the governor's race, until the end, you do not see very much. >> we have a lot of super pac independent expenditure not on tevision. there are a ton a field programs, phone programs, digital programs, predominantly field as of late, were you can really change outcomes. that was evidenced by the race between congressman passed ball

and congressman roscommon. it was a variety of field operations that changed the dynamics of that race. that was not even the intention of the field program, but it had a huge impact. in new jersey, the cost is so prohibitive that other mechanisms are being used. let's go to the microphone. we have a line developing. >> the you believe that corporations should be counted as people or not? >> i will let them start. [laughter] >> i think it is more of a legal question. there are legal reasons why they count corporations as people in court could it is beyond my expertise to have an opinion on that. >> we're pretty much on the same roles. >> 47% are not even relevant. [laughter] but if you can corporations as people, maybe you can add a

couple of points that. >> since you brought up the 47%, i have not heard governor romney say this good this is a guy who gives $4 million plus of his own money to charity. it is preposterous to say that someone gives millions and millions of dollars to charity and does not care about -- >> we did not say it. .itt romney said it appeare what it says to the public is that the mitt romney uc on a stage in a debate on national convention or on a tv ad is saying one thing. but the mitt romney behind closed doors when he thinks the press is gone, is another one. >> the 47%, the important point goes to improving your point. there has not -- priorities did not do an ad on the 47% thing.

you have seen that small media buy in terms of dollars spent. the amount of voters nationwide who know about this is remarkable. there were a whole bunch of surveys that tested whether or not people had heard about the 47% in the swing state appeared in the numbers were astronomically high. i do think that, it was emblematic of what people had already built in. if you had any uncertainty -- mitt romney is not like me. he is not like the middle-class. that one comment encapsulate it all. >> he was talking like a political strategist and not a presidential -- >> that was a lame excuse. he wasn't. 47% of the people not voting for me. i know that because 47% of the people are not voting for barack obama, that would be fine.

but that is not what he said. he went much further than that and it was a simple dismissing senator was 45% -- dismissing, saying 45% for him and 45% for me and we are vying for 10%. that is not what he said. >> in the interest of full disclosure, i am a grad student, a member of one of those unions. i thought i would say that. i just wanted to make it clear. my question is directed more to the republican strategist because i am surrounded by people who have the same ideological bent as me. i don't understand -- i have been following these recent voter i.d. laws. there is a link there with the super pacs because you see

people like me koch brothers who find these super pacs and other entities were tried to get these laws passed appeare. is this an attempted dotard disenfranchisement? is that in explicit strategy? how do you justify it? >> i don't know anybody would have said that that it is a strategy for motor disenfranchisement. >> i said that. they have said that they don't want certain people to vote. >> ok. here's what happens. i have seen firsthand voter fraud. it is probably not as rampant as

a lot of people would have you believe. just like the threat on republican dissent french minds -- republican disenfranchisement of people is also not as much as you would believe. i have watched people cast illegal votes and physically tried to stop it. that does not mean that every democrat is a crook or that every one that has one did so by cheating. if you pretend it is not happening, your only kidding yourself. you have a push on the other side to stop people from cheating. it is a very difficult tug between both sides on how to stop that. >> that is absurd. if you want to stop fraud, then do that. stop fraud. but to think they the only way you can stop an election is to disenfranchise people's votes, that is pretty embarrassing. there is a whole series of facts

that are completely out regis. -- outrageous. >> i am not as familiar with it in other states, but we don't have that here. the intent is to stop multiple people from voting, stopped dead people from voting. >> if you want to stop fraud, fraud. >> in the city of philadelphia, where everything is run by the city and the polling locations were literally in people's garages, you have no accountability. you have one party control, zero accountability and nobody watching the elections. you can complain that somebody is too much into these were, but you have no accountability in and never places in this country.

saying is not that easy. how about accountability -- >> both sides are right, right? >> my side is more right. [laughter] >> they are -- the tactics their choosing certainly seem abhorrent. the pennsylvania law, there was a stay on it today. it is the wrong tactic and i hope they change their ways. frankly, none of us think that voter suppression is the way to go. it is not the way to win elections. i am positive jonathan does not spend time thinking about how to suppress voters. but the solution of voter i.d. is absolutely wrong one. >> i would like to thank you all for coming here. before i ask my question, i

would like to read something from eric schulz greenpeace said, "in the aftermath, we have seen unprecedented amounts of campaign spending, often by groups who will not disclose their donors." how important is anonymity? it seems to me, like, if your argument is money is free speech, the mission hold people accountable for what they say. if the ceo of pepsi or to give $1 million to mitt romney tomorrow, i wouldn't buy pepsi for the rest of the year. so how do we hold them accountable? >> just a year? [laughter] >> he is not a committed. >> mountain dew? >> other pettitte products might be ok though. [laughter] >> it has to be 16 ounces. not anything more than that pierre >> how can we hold these people accountable when we do not know what they're saying? >> long story short, this

election cycle, there are a lot of different groups who are organized differently in the backlog appeare. all of those report to the fcc and they disclose their donors. there are also nonprofit organizations, a whole host of them, that are organized in a different part of the tax code. they are private organizations that are not required to disclose their members or their donors. this is a type of tax law that is protected going back to the 1950's. it has been argued -- there is a whole logic behind it. it is not done by the right or the left. it is done by these 501 (c) organizations. what the irs has issued is that come if you are a nonprofit

organization, you are allowed to spend some of your resources on political activity. it cannot be the majority what you do. but it can be some of what you do. that is what is happening with those 501 9c) 4 organizations. >> the new york city attorney general has entered into some of this, whether it is kosher, frankly, the kind of money that is being spent and all the proportions. jonathan described it perfectly well. there is something remarkable. the republicans for ever and ever were about disclose, disclose, disclose. and you can i get the disclosed at passed in the senate or in the house at all. >> is that the first place where you look for bipartisanship in

the last four years? >> the one place where president obama will reach across the aisle. [laughter] >> you already answered your own? why do you do anything anonymous? you don't want to be caught. you don't want someone to know what you're doing, right? it takes away a remarkable amount of accountability in the system. you have no sense where it is coming from, why does that come with their motives are, what is happening behind the curtain. >> there are a lot of questions that come from that angle. they are the same people that advocate the most severely for campaign reform. that is what i mean by the unintended consequences. it takes the money away from the candidates and in some way away from disclosure. they live under different rules

and ella have to abide by different rules on how they communicate. -- and now they have to abide by different rules on how they communicate. >> back in the 1970's, people were able to give $2,000 to candidates appeared now they can give $2,400 to candidates so over a lifetime, it has not changed very much. >> do you think we have seen the end of publicly financed campaigns? and what reforms you think we will see in campaign finance in the next few years? >> i do not think we have seen the and. >> i don't think so either. >> in new york city -- >> oh, you mean with the check box?

>> we are done with that. senator mccain opted in to the finance system. one of the untold stories about the 2008 race is that he was dramatically outspent in every target state. i do think nobody will do that ever again, unless it changes dramatically. but you know your experiences at the state level. in new jersey, we have matching funds for governor. on the gubernatorial level, there is funding where, if you raise a certain threshold, $350,000, the state will match two two for one. all of a sudden you have a million dollars. if you can reach a certain

threshold in terms of the ability to demonstrate that you can raise a certain amount of money, you can become viable pretty quick. even in the christi general election, christy had about $11 million. it really is a lot more than most campaigns get in new jersey on a senate race. but that gets to the point of being able to get your message out. but you really need to hit the neighborhood of about $10 million to get your message out. so it gives canada is the ability to get to the threshold level. -- so it gives candidates the ability to get to the threshold level. >> and cannot tell you how much time candidates spend

fundraising. when he first retired, the reason he wanted to retire was because he had to raise $12 million. when you look at his schedule for the year, a year before and the year he would be running, he would spend 60% of his professional year fundraising. it got to the point where it was so remarkably daunting to him. and in his mind coming inappropriate. so he would not do it. for a gubernatorial race, is great to have that program. >> you see that now on the presidential double. you see them spending much more time on non-target states. you have to have your 1000 + points in that media market.

you have to be there. it is a constant pull one whether i'm spending as much time on tv in getting media coverage. >> my question is for crossroads right wing -- >> wow. >> you mentioned the foundation of some of the right wing pacs being a response to union money. do you still consider yourselves at a disadvantage from this ?llegedly rampant union mamoney for the left, do you think that we will see in the future any of the lefty pacs coming in and finding more congressional and senate races? will we specifically targeted

ads attacking people like todd akin for their radical views or is this something that is reserved for the presidential election? >> we don't know what the unions have spent until they do their reporting. from the associated press, they reported that the unions will spend something around $400 million in 2012. i would suspect that it will be up in that range. but in terms of what they actually spend after all is said and done, we will know that until the middle of next year. >> 300 is by three people and one other guy. i think it will be very clear.

to answer your second question, there's a lot of activity in terms of super pacs in these senate races and house races. there is the house majority pac and they are spending their advertisement in all of those places. it was looking like it would be tough election and then akin opened his mouth. there is also activity in the center. one of the races where we are against each other, i wilwork fa guy in indiana. the tea party guy, richard murdock, came in and beat dick lugar, who was a senator for so long in a primary.

in the last two months, that race was a tiger and crossroads came in with a huge buy. the democratic side had a lot of money as well. when you go to indiana -- if you go to montana, you can watch tv without seeing nonstop political advertising. the candidates are a tiny piece of it now. >> thank you for coming. i want to ask this question for jonathan. i think everyone here would agree that democracy, if we have so much money in so little people, do you think that undermines democracy. me, as a volunteer, $1 million

is more than i can do for working in a campaign. how do you think that disenfranchises what we are as a democracy? >> you have to think about what the alternative is. i don't think you want to be in a situation where the government is determining that someone who wants to put his ideas on television cannot do that. that is one of the things of campaign finances. the campaign finance system may not look perfect, but when you look at the alternatives, i don't know that it is a good idea to have the department of justice determining -- that they cannot do that. when you start moving into that

constitutional right, that is when it starts getting ugly. >> even on our side, there has been money in elections for forever, lots of money going back as long as we can. it can go back to george washington and there are stories on how george washington, the night before, they were buying barrels of beer and celebration on how they got out the vote. i don't think either side necessarily thinks that the money itself and having many and doing it the way we need to do campaigns is necessarily evil. it is about disclosure. it is about how these things are funded. if we want to support an ad, ok, the supreme court, free speech, .ut up an ad pai i am in one of the super pacs.

we do it because we will not disarm. we will not unilaterally disarm. but there has to be a better way than this. >> thank you for your question. >> both democratic and republican politicians have publicly spoken out against the existence of super pacs saying they could corrupt our democratic system. what do you think on this issue? >> i believe that the supreme court erred and that the outcome is not necessarily great and there has to be a better way. the first thing that you heard us talk about, the disclose act, which has been bandied about on the democratic side in terms of

having disclosure, far more disclosure. i think we would be better off. our democracy is strong. let's be clear. we are ok. we are not dying based on this. but there is no question that we still have some tweaking to do. every time we thought -- in 2004, 2002, it was all about the 527's -- there's always a new iteration. don't ignore that point something new will come around. >> we got involved in the political process for a reason to i have tremendous faith in the boaters. they can sit through it and figure it out. and it is the job of both sides, both candidates on either side to advocate hard. but i believe that voters can figure it out.

>> remember, when you go to the west coast, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars on ballot initiatives. so much money is spent on propositions for something that you may have no clue or care about. the airways -- the airwaves are even more crowded. ballot initiatives are another thing. they are largely funded by individuals or large groups try to get some point across on both sides. >> unions in the united states are a dying thing. their last bastion is really the public sector. how long do you see v b union's remaining a potent political force? -- how long do you see the

union's remaining a potent political force? in ohio, they did take some hits. >> on the future, i cannot really say. i can go back to 2010 where three of the top five spending groups were unions. that was reported in "the wall street journal." there's a whole slew of research to back that up. maybe not on television but in other ways that union spends money. at this point, there are still very strong. >> like any other sector, if unions did not innovate, they will have a problem. that is the case for everything. companies have to think about unique ways to get at the heart of what they care about. there is a history, whether civil or women's rights are workers' rights, were people remember why unions were created in the first place most of the

world today has the recollection of what happened. you got paid in number that could not let you live in the town in which you lived. the walk to be an evolution in innovation. -- there will have to be an evolution in innovation. with a take their own money create economic development. -- where they take their own money and create economic development. their own investment managers and seeking out economic development opportunities. that is smart. that is looking at how to get folks work and do something to incentivize the economy to move again. there are a lot of intelligent unions thinking differently about it. there are a pretty powerful group. >> wanting to watch, especially

in new jersey and the north east, we cut -- we come from more unionized states. one of the things that is important -- is a growing season between public sector and the trades and private sector. very different views on politics and public policy coming from those sites. we are in an early stage on that but it is something to watch as we go forward in terms of the different political objectives of public and private sector. ultimately you will see a bit of a divergence in that regard this as a popular topic. people love to talk about the division between public and private-sector unions. public and private-sector unions have always had a different agenda. public-sector unions are focused on how to maintain the quality

level of service and what you pay for those services? private-sector unions have a different obligation to go to work. if there is one in the economic -- economy in which to live, you will not be able to the private sector members to work. there has always been different agendas in terms of how the public -- focus on the public policy question very -- question. >> thank you all for coming here and talking to us. my question is, you talked about the emergence of super pacs and how the candidates influence on what they say and how much is of their influence. how much on the super pacs level what theit qanand see candid it does with their campaign or you strike first. do you see the super pacs

setting issues in the election cycle in the future? >> the super pacs -- throw that out for a minute. i think you're talking about is independent infrastructure is. the pens -- it depends. when both sides are armed with good pollsters looking at the numbers, and we are trying to figure out what is hapning in a race. take are doing well, let's indiana, for example. joe donnelly comes out and at the end of the primary, the republican candidate lacks money

. all the polls show us ahead. we are doing great. they have to sit there and say we know that murdoch is sitting there with no money. do we jump a in and try to help? should we fill that time? that is the kind of decisions these independent expenditures go through all the time. sometimes they are. in general, we love to take kant's from the candidate. even though we are not coordinated, and so it is better the notion that we're taking hints to see what the campaign would like because we do not want to do something they do not like. sometimes we are the ones to jump first. >> to be candid, traditionally it is contrasting-. -- contrasting negative.

the obama campaign was clear they would not wait to define mitt romney. they felt they did not do a good job with the outside -- outset, this would be more difficult situation. what jeff and his team have pulled off is a certain perception of mitt romney. they did a fine job at it. it is part of what the mitt romney campaign is trying to reposition itself to figure how to move forward. >> the obamacare band did a wonderful job before it got there with a lot more money. -- the obama campaign did a wonderful job before we got there, with a lot more money. outsideuse we've --

groups cannot ordinate -- coordinate with candid it, it means the candidates cannot really star in our tv ads. we cannot shoot an ad of mitt romney talking about why he will be the best president. so what kind of does is almost make all the allied group advertising negative. at that point, you know we're not courtney barack obama sulman in- -- to run a negative ad about him. in 2010, cross roads ran an ad supportive of senator rob portman and the ohio senate race. we pulled the video footage from

a publicly available place and immediately within a couple of hours of a going on the air, the ohio democratic party filed a complaint alleging that a coordinated with the campaign to get a foot is. that was enough of a net -- of a credit that we have not run a .ositive ad since, the campaign law separated a situation where there is a lot of contrast advertising because of the prohibitions against coordinating. >> the democratic congressional campaign committee, the rnc, they are doing a bunch of comparative ads. each of the candidates is throwing their information on the party website. there has been more from their committee and there may be more over the closing weeks, particularly in the swing states where voters are so overwhelmed with the negative that

there may be more of a contrasting. even independent groups are saying they need a base. we need to say something nice about these people. >> we will take the last question. >> to be further elaborate on the complexities that into making these ads? there is a very delicate balance. what is the criteria he specifically use to create these ads? are they a part of a campaign plan within the super pacs or do you look at the other president or governor romney and take it from there? >> it is a very research based thing. the whole process. campaigns are very research base.

both sides, we are armed with data. we want to attack various things and whether people persuaded by -- this message, that message, social security. demi develop ads based on some of the leading family develop ads based on those messages. we have to be able to say we were going to do this but the other side is doing x so maybe we have to go there. in the beginning, the plants are there and the inevitably go all the place. -- the plans are there and then go all over thely place. i love what i do. i have a blast. all of us love the game, love what we are doing, and let the

people we believe in. what makes it nice is it is never the same. >> i would never underestimate the amount of research that goes into any political ad by a professional organization. a smaller group, you never know they are advertising on. but a group like crossroads -- there are four americans -- verifications' behind every assertion limit. -- behind ever assertion we make. we have never had an ad pulled. we make sure every assertion we make is a bullet pointed with different levels of verification. >> people who used to run campaigns -- if you are a doing a good job running an outside group, your try to figure out if

i was running a campaign would be helpful to see on tv? the most effective outside groups are generally run by people with significant campaign experience to understand an outside group can really screw things up if they run the wrong kind of ad and can be helpful if they run the right kind of act. >> and outside group, if the ad is false, tv stations can pull them off the air. to doalmost impossible that to a candidate. they have the freedom to say almost whatever they want but we are much more conscious of the independent side. we spend a lot of time on the back and research in, making sure the facts are right because we do not want the ads backed up. we spend money figuring out what the message should be but once a creek that ad, we may even test the ad.

there are lots of different ways we try to figure out to do these things work or not. low sides are armed with this vast information -- both sides are armed with this vast information. >> we only have a couple of minutes. would you like to leave the audience with one last thought of the role we think these ads are playing in this particular race? we will but the youth handicapped the congress and presidential race. rex thank you so much. it has been a great of that. abbot go back -- >> thank you so much. it has been a great event. we are educating viewers about the record of a candidate or elected official. it is difficult for a group to a bat in what people think about an issue or a portion or tax increases. those are values that have

developed over a decade. would you can do is educate voters, especially in situations where the candidates are elected official has done something that is sideways with what they beijing their constituents think, it provides more a permission to the political process. you have to think about what the alternatives are. you can have people not liking taxes or end up with all kinds of such a ship. it is always critical to look at the system before you talk about how to change the system. >> the most perverse bastardizaiotion of a policy pln done by the right wing where we have all these groups -- a $716

billion dollar cut to medicate which is not true. every republican he is supported also supports the exact same thing. they are accounted for in the ryan but it -$200 million more. -- but minus $200 million more. these are the things are problematic in terms of the policy debate. the super pacs make it worse for you have individuals who have personal opinions they are trying to force upon people. we would be better off with the candidates. i am happy to be a part of the super pacs and defend barack obama because he's the best and next president of the united states. and that is phenomenal. but do i wish this did not have to be? yes, i did. experience -- they work just fine.

while the voters say they may not be very happy with tax boater funded campaigns, it is gone pretty smoothly. the rhetoric -- the rhetoric does not match the reality at the end of the day. more likely we will see changes to the loss and the next incarnation a super pacs. [applause] take you very much for coming. vote yes on ballot 1, to invest money in higher education facilities which we have not done in new jersey for almost a quarter of a century. thank you very much for tonight. [laughter] [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> as vice president biden and

paul ryan prepared for the debate, we're showing past vice presidential debates starting at 7 eastern, dick cheney and senator don edwards from 2004. although by then senator joe biden and governor sarah palin in 2008. at 10:15 eastern, vice-president george bush and represent -- rep ferraro from 1984. and dan quayle and benson from 1980. to that of facebook, we are asking what is your favorite vice president joe moment -- today on facebook, we are asking what is your david vice- presidentiafavorite vice presidl moment. >> sees bank is a great look into what is happening -- c-span gives a great look into what is

happening in washington. it is very objective and shows a lot of what is real and what is going on. i watched hearings on c-span. also when the supreme court has hearings, we watch different decisions and opinions on c- span. >> she watches c-span on direct tv. c-span, created by america's cable companies in 1979, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. in his weekly address, president obama talks about the jobs report released yesterday, showing the unemployment rate down to 7.8%. he is followed by the republican response given by the rnc chair.

>> hi, everybody. four years after the worst economic crisis of our lifetime, we are seeing signs that at the nation, we are moving forward again. after losing about 800,000 jobs among when i took office, our businesses have added 5.2 million jobs over the past two and a half years. on friday, the unemployment rate is now at its lowest level since i took office. more americans are getting jobs. too many of our friends and neighbors are still looking for work are struggling to pay the bills. many of them long before this crisis hit. we owe it to them to keep moving forward. we have come too far to turn back now. we have made to much progress to return to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place. two years ago we had a place tougher rules for wall street to make of the kind of crisis we have been fighting back from never happens again. these rules means that big banks are no longer going to be able

to make risky bets with their deposits. if a big bang does make a bad decision, they pay for it. not taxpayers. we also put in place a strong as consumer protection in our history to crack down on the worst practices of credit card companies and mortgage lenders. for some reasons, some republicans in congress are waging a battle to the late and dismantle these common-sense new rules. why? did they think undonig ing the rules will make the middle class stronger? do they think getting rid of the rules to prevent another crisis on wall street will make me streets safer? republicans in congress need to stop trying to be fight the battle of the last years and is a bid to help the middle class get ahead. there are three things they can do right now. first, congress needs to step up a guarantee that 98% of americans and 97% of small- business owners will not see

their taxes go up next year. this is something everyone says they a agree on. it should have gotten done months ago. the republicans in congress are standing in the way. they are holding tax cut for 98% of american hostage until we pass tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of americans. asked about how that we asked them how that helps the middle class. congress did to provide every responsible home owner a chance to save about $3,000 a year on the mortgage by refinancing at lower rates. i give them a plan to do that in february, a plan that has the support of independence and leaders across the housing industry. republicans will not the plan come to a vote. ask them how that helps home owners. third, congress need to step up and passed my plan to create a veteran's job corps to help our returning heroes find work as cops, firefighters, and park rangers and communities across the country. a few weeks ago, republicans in the state -- senate vote of the

plan down. in other words, ask them to get back to work and get these things done. there is no time for political gains, even in a political season. everyone needs to do their part. if you agree with me, let your representative know where you stand. tell them that if they want your vote, they need to stand with you and not in the way of our recovery. thank you and have a great weekend. >> hi, i am chairman other rnc. this week americans watched the debate between president obama and mitt romney and the crystallize the choice we face. it was painfully clear during the debate the president obama has no new ideas to fix the economy. his only plan for a second term as a tax increase so large it would destroy over 700,000 jobs.

as friday's jobs report shows, america still desperately needs jobs. it the president's soul proposal would mean fewer jobs. we need a new direction. because we cannot afford four more years like the last four. falling incomes, rising prices, 23 million americans struggling for work. $5.50 trillion in new national debt. and now growing turmoil overseas in the middle east. president obama's policies have not worked. as vice president biden admitted, the middle-class has been buried in the last four years. another four years would does barry the middle class even more. during the 2008 debate, then senator obama assured us that he fully understood our problems

and that he had the right solution. he promised to make health care more affordable. yeah president obama promise to get our spending under control by cutting the deficits in half. he also was so confident that shortly after taking office, president obama said he would fix the economy in three years or face a one term proposition. today he has broken those promises. now his words have no credibility. midway to the debate, the president realized that he had an president for the past four years and it was his policies and his agenda that failed to produce any of the results that a promised us as a candidate. president obama had not shown the kind of leadership we need. the face crisis today. which requires a steady hand. in a leader focus on the job.

a president obama's focus has been on saving his own job. as party chairman, i understand that the president must campaign. but he also has a job to do. while barack obama enjoys being president, he does not seem to enjoy the work required in being a great president. for example, he has not bother to meet with his own jobs council since january. however, he has found the time for a lavish campaign fund- raisers, 140 cents a slash jobs council meeting. the president -- 140 since his last dodd council meeting. -- his last jobs council meting. the story is the same with foreign-policy purity for our embassies were attacked, we learned that the president has been skipping his daily intelligence briefings. when the united nations general

assembly gathered in new york last week, the president did not make time to meet with leaders. not prime minister netanyahu, not the president of libya, not the president of egypt. but he did make time to go on the tv talk-show "the view." all this leaves americans wondering -- where is the leadership. whether it is a crisis abroad at home -- or at home, the prospective the debate and the choice we face in november. as governor romney outlined on wednesday night, he has a clear specific plan the mitt romney paul ryan plan for a stalker middle-class is expected to create 12 million jobs over the next four years. governor romney has a plan to cut taxes for middle-class americans. atlanta achievement north american energy in -- independence. and international affairs,

governor romney will not apologize to our adversaries. he would champion peace through strength and protect our interests and ideals. how can we be sure he can get the job done? it is simple. he has a record. unlike president obama's reichert, mitt romney's record is a record of success. he started successful companies and state failing ones. he records the 20 -- 2002 olympics and it became a source of national pride. as governor, he balanced every budget, cut taxes, improved education, and reduced unemployment rate in the coming debates, the contras will grow sharper and the choice clear. if we want to do better, then the last four years, there is only one choice to make. that is governor mitt romney.

thank you, god bless you and god bless america. >> americans are not the only people have is september 11 in the national stories. in santiago, chilly, there was a september 11 event that had a dramatic impact on chilean history and memory. on that day in 1973, military officers from the army and the unit's staged a full-scale assault on their own country. they took over regulations, police stations and other centers of power is. in santiago, they stormed the presidential palace, charged through, guns blazing. when they were done, the president of chile was dead. these events on september 11 for chile begot a reign of terror

land -- led by pinochet. he was responsible for torture, murder and repression. but most chileans did not know in 1973 and what many americans do not know was that the coup of september 11, 1973, was the work of intelligence operatives. american intelligence operatives. they took their orders directly on the white house. >> this weekend on lectures and history, the cia and cold war regime change, tonight at 8:00 eastern and sunday at 1:00 on american history tv. >> republican ted cruz debated for the open texas senate seat vacated. this debate took place in this debate took place in dallas, courtesy of wfaa